JUDGMENT 1. These applications have been filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.17(3)2022 registered under Sections 376(D)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(g)/34, altered under Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West. 2. Since both the applications arise out of the same FIR, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2022 the complainant lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Women Police Station, Imphal West stating that on 8.3.2022 at around 3.30 p.m., while the complainant was living alone in her room, two unknown persons masked with clothes came inside her room and forcibly covered the complainants' mouth, tied her hands and legs by small shawl taken from the hanger and they forcibly raped her. After committing rape, the two persons threatened her by keeping a knife on the belly of the complainant saying not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise they will kill her. The complainant tried to shout, but she was overpowered by them. Later, the two persons left the complainant without releasing her from binding. She could not report the incident on time due to fear of threatening by the two persons. Thereafter, on 10.03.2022 the complainant went to the Women Police Station, Imphal West and lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, a case was registered under FIR No.17(3)2022 WPS-IW U/s.376(2)(g)/34 IPC. Later, the charge section has been corrected as Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC. 4. The petitioners have filed bail applications stating that the respondent police registered the FIR on 10.03.2022 against two unknown persons without any basis on mere allegation that they visited the house of the victim in the morning and thereafter, they arrested them on 10.03.2022 and 11.3.2022 respectively. Further, the respondent police made up a false case that the victim identified the petitioners before filing of the report/original ejahar and also concocted some improbable story about raping the complainant by the petitioners. Hence, these bail applications. 5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioners, they admitted that they came to the house of the victim in the morning on which date the incident happened. However, both the accused refused to admit that they raped the victim. The victim identified the petitioners who committed the crime. Hence, these bail applications. 5. The respondent police filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on interrogation of the petitioners, they admitted that they came to the house of the victim in the morning on which date the incident happened. However, both the accused refused to admit that they raped the victim. The victim identified the petitioners who committed the crime. Only on identification, the petitioners were arrested in this case for investigation, however, the petitioners tried to mislead the investigation by giving inconsistent statements. Hence, prayed for dismissal of bail applications. 6. Mr. P. Tomcha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they are in no way connected with the alleged crime and in fact they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint and that the petitioners are not named in the complaint or FIR and in fact, no such incident took place on 8.3.2022. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that no incriminating materials had been seized from the petitioners at any relevant point of time and that the petitioners are married man having wife and children and they are the only bread winners to their families. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that the learned Sessions Jude ignored the importance of the allegation that the complainant identified the accused on 9.3.2022 when the report/original ejahar was filed against unidentified persons on 10.3.2022, which clearly shows that the complaint is false and fabricated one. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge also ignored the fact that the alleged incident took place at around 3.30 p.m., while the alleged visiting of the petitioner at the house of the complainant was in the morning on the same day. 9. The learned counsel urged that the learned Sessions Judge erred in arriving at a conclusion while rejecting the bail applications that sufficient time should be given to the investigating authority to hunt out more details in connection with the case. In fact, there are no material on record to prima facie conclude that the petitioners have involved in the alleged rape of the complainant. Thus, a prayer is made to grant bail to the petitioners. 10. Per contra, Mr. In fact, there are no material on record to prima facie conclude that the petitioners have involved in the alleged rape of the complainant. Thus, a prayer is made to grant bail to the petitioners. 10. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, examined the complainant and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in connection with this case and visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch. On examination of the complainant, she is found pregnant for four months. In her statement, she stated that the culprits were entered into her room when no one was in the house with half-masked over their face with cloth. In her statement, she further stated that the petitioner Sanatomba sealed her mouth with his hand and petitioner Ajitkumar held her hands and they took three short shawls from her wooden phiyan and after tied her hands and mouth, they raped her one after another. The statement of the victim would reveal that after commission of the crime, the petitioners threatened her by putting a knife on her belly by saying that if she disclose anybody, they will kill the victim. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted the prima facie materials gathered during investigation prove the involvement of the petitioners in the crime and in fact on interrogation the petitioners admitted about the visit to the house of the victim in the morning on which day the incident took place, however, they refused to admit the crime. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that since the victim identified the petitioners and on identification only they were arrested for investigation, the involvement of the petitioners in the crime has been established. Since the crime committed by the petitioners is heinous and if they are released on bail, they will hamper the investigation and also threaten the important witnesses and destroy evidence. That apart, the petitioners will abscond to evade the trial. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the bail applications. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 8.3.2022, they entered into the room of the victim when she was alone and forcibly covered her mouth, tied her hands and legs by shawl and raped her forcibly one after another. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 8.3.2022, they entered into the room of the victim when she was alone and forcibly covered her mouth, tied her hands and legs by shawl and raped her forcibly one after another. Further, they threatened the victim by keeping knife on her belly saying that if she disclose the incident to anyone, they will kill her. 15. Admittedly, in her complaint, the victim stated that two unknown persons masked with clothes came inside her room and forcibly covered her mouth, hands and legs by her chunni and they forcibly raped her. It is also her version that the unknown persons threatened her by keeping the knife on her belly by saying that if she disclose the incident, they will kill her. The complaint is stated to have been given on 10.3.2022 at 10.00 am. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent police registered the case in FIR No.17(3)2022 under Section 376(2)(g)/34 IPC. 16. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent police stated that the victim disclosed the incident to her husband on the next day morning on 9.3.2022 and her family also came to know the incident. She also identified the petitioners as accused with the help of her parent's in laws. When the victim identified that petitioners have committed the crime, nothing prevented her in giving complaint against the petitioners directly by naming them on 9.3.2022 itself. On the other hand, the FIR reveals that on 10.3.2022 only the victim lodged the complaint, that too without mentioning the names of the accused. There is no proper explanation forthcoming from the prosecution, however, the same would involve trial. 17. According to the prosecution, on identification by the complainant, the respondent police arrested the petitioners in connection with the case and on preliminary interrogation, they admitted that they went to the victim's house on the date of incident. Therefore, their interrogation is very much required. The alleged incident took place at around 3.30 p.m., while the alleged visit of the accused at the residence of the victim was in the morning. Thus, prima facie, there are contradiction regarding the visit of the accused at the residence of the victim. The aforesaid aspect also will be proved only during trial. The alleged incident took place at around 3.30 p.m., while the alleged visit of the accused at the residence of the victim was in the morning. Thus, prima facie, there are contradiction regarding the visit of the accused at the residence of the victim. The aforesaid aspect also will be proved only during trial. Though the factual aspects are not required to be considered in the bail application, for the purpose of considering the bail application in the light of the complaint, this Court has referred the same. The aforesaid conclusion drawn by this Court is not conclusive, but only prima facie view. 18. The petitioners were arrested on 10.3.2022 and 11.3.2022 respectively and the remand report reveals that pursuant to the order of the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the respondent police has taken custody of the accused from 11.3.2022 to 17.3.2022 and after examination and interrogation of the accused, on 17.3.2022, the respondent police produced the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I and the petitioners were remanded into judicial custody. Thus, the petitioners are in judicial custody from 17.3.2022. 19. While filing the affidavit-in-opposition dated 12.07.2022 to the bail applications, the respondent police stated that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is to be recorded soon. It is stated that attempts were also made to trace out the knife and the khudei that the accused used as mask while committing the crime, but the same is not traceable yet. The aforesaid is recorded in this order only to show the slow progress in the investigation by the prosecution. 20. Earlier, the petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West by filing Cri. Misc. (B) Case Nos.27 and 28 of 2022. By the order dated 12.5.2022, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail applications holding that proper and thorough investigation of the case is needed and, as such, at this point, giving full hand to the investigating authority for enabling proper and thorough investigation is much necessary. As stated supra, as on the date of filing of the affidavit-in opposition to the bail applications, the respondent police have not shown any interest in recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even to trace out the knife said to have been used by the accused while committing the alleged crime. 21. As stated supra, as on the date of filing of the affidavit-in opposition to the bail applications, the respondent police have not shown any interest in recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even to trace out the knife said to have been used by the accused while committing the alleged crime. 21. As stated supra, the petitioners are not individually named in the FIR and the FIR has been registered against the unknown persons and only after registration of the FIR and on interrogation, the respondent police implicated the petitioners into the crime. At this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioners have committed the crime. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Sessions that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused persons had committed the alleged offence is not acceptable. Moreover, the same is not supported by any cogent proof. 22. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners cannot be penalized merely because they were identified by the victim and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioners for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioners is against the constitutional right and liberty. 23. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 24. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 24. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 25. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 26. Where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 27. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail applications. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail applications. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved during trial and that apart the petitioners were not named accused in the FIR. 28. It has been time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as 'reasonable, just, fair' so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 29. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 30. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 31. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the investigation is in progress. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 17.3.2022. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 31. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the investigation is in progress. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 17.3.2022. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 32. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.' 33. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 34. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 35. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 36. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 37. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 38. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 39. As stated supra, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West dismissed the bail applications holding that release of the petitioners at this stage of investigation may hamper or adversely affect the furtherance of the same. 39. As stated supra, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West dismissed the bail applications holding that release of the petitioners at this stage of investigation may hamper or adversely affect the furtherance of the same. Admittedly, such finding of the learned Sessions Judge is without any material proof. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners would involve oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have arrived at such finding. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient bonds and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation and also they will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 40. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners that they will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice and furthermore, as admitted by the prosecution, the best part of investigation was completed and also considering incarceration of the petitioners from 17.3.2022, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 41. Accordingly, Bail Application Nos.7 and 8 of 2022 are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.17(3)2022 under Section 376 (D)/34 IPC, altered under Section 376 (2)(g)/34 IPC, altered under Section 376(2)(h)/34 IPC on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West District, subject to the petitioners each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I with the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall not leave the place of their residences without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of their respective residence and the complete address of such places shall be furnished to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I at the time of release. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for three weeks and thereafter as and when required. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for three weeks and thereafter as and when required. (iii) If the petitioners have passport, they shall also surrender the same to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I. (iv) The petitioners shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the victim and her family members. (v) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioners are directed to co-operate the investigation without fail. (vii) It is clarified that if the petitioners misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail applications. (ix) The respondent police authorities are directed to expedite the investigation and take necessary steps in accordance with law.